Labour

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Most Australians are spending more of their income on housing than they used to, but low-income households are being squeezed the hardest.
Many are in <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ACOSS_Poverty-in-Australia-Report_Web-Final.pdf" target="_blank">poverty</a>, and many more are suffering <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/912-Money-in-retirement.pdf" target="_blank">financial stress</a>. A growing number of Australians are becoming <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/2019/06/who-is-homeless-in-australia/" target="_blank">homeless</a>.
A decade ago the Rudd federal government established the National Rental Affordability Scheme – <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/programmes-services/national-rental-affordability-scheme" target="_blank">NRAS</a>. The scheme paid incentives to developers and community housing organisations that built new homes and rented them out for at least 20% below market rents for 10 years.
The Abbott government axed the scheme in 2014. Labor promised to reintroduce it if won the 2019 election. Now advocates of affordable housing are calling on the Morrison government to do the same.
But new research <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/?p=1011&amp;preview=true" target="_blank">published by the Grattan Institute today</a> concludes they are wrong. The NRAS was expensive, inefficient and mainly helped those not in greatest need.
Other policies, such as building social housing and boosting Commonwealth Rent Assistance, would be better targeted and waste less money along the way.
Poor value for money
The <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/programs-services/national-rental-affordability-scheme/national-rental-affordability-scheme-nras-incentive-indexation" target="_blank">value of the NRAS subsidy</a> was set much higher than it needed to be.
NRAS developers still on the program receive about A$11,000 of public money per unit per year (the subsidy was set originally at A$8,000, but indexed).
The problem is, A$11,000 is much more money than the developers need to cover the cost of the rental discount.
In 2016 the value of the 20% rental discount was slightly less than A$4,000 a year in the typical suburb in which NRAS properties were built.
The leftover value of the subsidy – about A$7,000 a year – was essentially a windfall gain for developers.
We estimate it provided windfall gains to private developers of at least A$1 billion, or roughly one-third of the <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/national-rental-affordability-scheme-administration-allocations" target="_blank">total cost</a> of the scheme.
Community housing providers also received windfall gains, although they would have reinvested the funds into more affordable housing or deeper rental discounts for tenants.
The scheme was also poor value for money because the subsidy didn’t vary depending on location or type of dwelling: the same subsidy was offered for a one-bedroom apartment or a three-bedroom home. Not surprisingly, the scheme ultimately <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/07_2019/nras-quarterly-report-march-2019.pdf" target="_blank">funded</a> a lot of small, cheap-to-build units.
Not directed at those most in need
The eligibility criteria were far too loose.
Someone can qualify to live in one of the NRAS dwellings left on the scheme with an income of <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/programs-services/national-rental-affordability-scheme/national-rental-affordability-scheme-nras-household-income-indexation" target="_blank">up to A$50,000</a> – a good deal higher than the <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/2019/04/how-much-does-the-typical-australian-earn-the-answer-might-surprise-you/" target="_blank">median income</a>.
A couple can qualify if their household income is below A$70,000.
It means about half of all households that rent can qualify to live in an NRAS subsidised home. Half of them would be ineligible for Commonwealth Rent Assistance because their incomes are too high.
Only <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2017/nras_tenant_demographic_report_as_at_30_april_2016.pdf" target="_blank">one-third</a> of the households living in an NRAS home at the scheme’s peak in 2016 had gross household incomes below A$30,000 a year, whereas one-third had incomes above A$50,000 a year.
No extra housing
There’s also little evidence the NRAS led to much more housing being built than otherwise.
Government subsidies don’t create extra housing if they crowd out housing that would have been built anyway. Crowding out is most likely when supply is already constrained, as it is in major Australian cities where land-use rules <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/901-Housing-affordability.pdf" target="_blank">prevent greater density</a> in established suburbs. International research suggests affordable housing <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272710000885" target="_blank">crowds out</a> private housing.
No useful stimulus
Nor was the NRAS a useful stimulus. It began in 2008 at the height of the global financial crisis, but most NRAS properties were <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/07_2019/nras-quarterly-report-march-2019.pdf" target="_blank">only approved</a> between 2013 and 2015, by which time housing construction was <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/901-Housing-affordability.pdf" target="_blank">already booming</a>.
<a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/administration-national-rental-affordability-scheme" target="_blank">Administrative difficulties</a> and a complex design made housing constructed through NRAS anything but timely.
Better alternatives
Instead of reinstating the NRAS, state and federal governments should focus on policies that will do the most (at least cost) to better house low-income Australians.
A Rudd-era policy the Morrison government should introduce is the <a href="http://www.nwhn.net.au/admin/file/content101/c6/social_housing_initiative_review.pdf" target="_blank">Social Housing Initiative</a>, which built 20,000 new social housing units and refurbished another 80,000 over two years at a cost of A$5.6 billion.
The economic hit was immediate: construction approvals spiked within 12 months of the announcement. A repeat today would provide a more effective boost to declining housing construction than a reinstated NRAS.
<a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/commonwealth-orange-book-2019/" target="_blank">Boosting</a> Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 40%, and indexing it to changes in rents typically paid by people receiving income support, would be a fairer and more cost-effective way to help the much larger number of lower-income earners struggling with housing costs.
It <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/912-Money-in-retirement.pdf" target="_blank">shouldn’t push up rents much</a> because only some of the extra assistance will be spent on housing.
The states should also <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-make-housing-more-affordable-this-is-what-state-governments-need-to-do-105050" target="_blank">fix planning rules</a> that prevent more homes being built in inner and middle-ring suburbs of our largest cities. It would help a bit to make housing cheaper to buy and rent. Reforming tenancy rules would make renting more secure.
There is a powerful case for governments to do more to help house low-income Australians. But unless we learn from past mistakes, we will wind up with another expensive housing policy that does little to help those who most need that support.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122854/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Brendan Coates, Program Director, Household Finances, Grattan Institute.
Jessie Horder-Geraghty, Researcher, Grattan Institute.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/rudds-rental-affordability-scheme-was-a-1-billion-gift-to-developers-abbott-was-right-to-axe-it-122854" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Kevin Rudd’s rental affordability scheme was a $1 billion gift to developers; Tony Abbott was right to axe it

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Today’s modest increase in employment of 10.8k was pretty much in line with market expectations which were centred on a lift of 12.0k (CBA(f) +20k). 
The lift in jobs builds on the solid rise in employment over March and confirms that job creation is still taking place despite record low (and falling) wages growth. The pulse of jobs growth, however, has slowed since the beginning of the year after accelerating markedly in the December quarter. Digging below the surface shows that today’s employment report is softer than the headline numbers imply.
The trend: Cutting through the volatility shows that monthly jobs growth over the past four months has averaged just 6.5k. Normally such an outcome would be associated with an increase in the unemployment rate. But a downward trend in the participation rate has meant that the unemployment rate has actually come down over that period.
<a href="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-19%20at%203.31.14%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-19%20at%203.31.14%20PM.png" alt="">
Unemployment: The unemployment rate was able to hold firm at 5.7 percent in April because the participation rate moved a touch lower. The trend unemployment rate, which smooths out the monthly volatility, continued to edge lower.
Hours worked: Growth in aggregate hours worked has eased over the past few months.
Total aggregate hours worked fell by 1.1 percent in April and took the annual change into negative territory (-0.5 percent) for the first time since May 2013. On the surface, this looks at odds with the annual change in the level of employment (+2.1 percent). But the disparity is explained by the big lift in part-time jobs over the past year. There have been twice as many part-time jobs (161k) created as full-time jobs (83.8k).
States: Across the States, there were job gains in NSW (+8.4k), Vic (+0.7k) and SA (5.7k). Employment was flat in WA and TAS while it fell in QLD (-6.6k). NSW and Vic have been driving national employment growth. Booming property markets in both Sydney and Melbourne have supported household consumption in NSW and Victoria, which is largely to the benefit of the services sector.
Leading indicators: The leading indicators of employment growth are painting a mixed picture at present. The vacancies series are pointing to only modest jobs growth, but the NAB business survey continues to suggest robust jobs growth.
The fall in hours worked looks concerning, but then the downward trend in the unemployment rate appears optically comforting. So there is something in the numbers for those looking at them with either an optimistic or pessimistic lens.
<a href="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-19%20at%203.35.11%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-19%20at%203.35.11%20PM.png" alt="">
We would argue that the RBA is viewing the labour market through a realistic lens and their latest assessment that, “employment would continue to grow, but at a somewhat slower pace than had been evident over the previous year” looks about right.
RBA: Today’s figures on their own don’t really shift the dial from an RBA perspective for the June meeting. But when pieced together with yesterday’s very soft wages report it may be that the risks of a June cut are lifting a little. The capex report next week now takes on added importance for those picking the timing of another expected cut to the cash rate.
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
Gareth Aird is economist at Commonwealth Bank and can be contacted <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://au.linkedin.com/pub/gareth-aird/14/790/905" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Headline labour force figures ok, but details reveal softness: CBA's Gareth Aird

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The emerging new trend for slightly softer participation is something we are watching closely. Also note that annual growth in total hours worked was negative this month.
There was not much excitement in the 10.8k rise in total employment in April as was enough to lift the annual pace to 2.1 percent/yr from 2.0 percent/yr and hold the unemployment rate flat at 5.72 percent.
On these two headline numbers there is not much to make you want to alter neither your trajectory for the Australian labour market nor how you think about the outlook for monetary policy.
<a href="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-19%20at%202.25.19%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-19%20at%202.25.19%20PM.png" alt="">
However, there are still some key issues that come to light from the current survey. First is further confirmation that employment growth is concentrated in female and part-time employment.
In the year to April, part-time employment has grown 160.9k (4.5 percent/yr) while full-time employment has growth 83.8k (1.0 percent/yr). 
Given that full-time employment represents 69 percent of total employment that in the last year we have added twice as many part-time employees as full-time employees it really highlights the significant shift the economy is experiencing. Furthermore, female employment has grown 164.4k (3.1 percent/yr) in the year to April which is more than double the 80.3k gain (1.3 eprcent/yr) in male employment. As we have noted previously, this highlight the big shift in employment growth from the previously booming resources sectors to the more modestly growing services sectors as these sectors have a much higher proportion of female and part-time workers in their labour force.
<a href="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-19%20at%202.25.52%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-19%20at%202.25.52%20PM.png" alt="">
The second key issue is that the participation rate was flat in April. From January 2014 there has been a trend rise in participation which has been driven mostly by a rise in female participation and in particular, a rise in female participation in NSW. However, participation appears to have peaked in the last quarter of 2015 averaging 64.1 percent, up from 65.0% in Q3, then moderate to 64.9 percent in the first quarter of 2016. Printing 64.9 percent in April is does look as if participation is holding around these new levels rather than drifting higher.
It is also worth noting that a return of a small trend decline in male participation has been key to this moderation. Female participation has been volatile of late but the trend appears to be holding the new higher level.   
There was one indicator that suggests we should be cautious about being too optimistic about the near term employment outlook. Total hours worked fell 1.1 percent in April, following a –1.1 percent print in March, to be down 0.5 percent in the year. Compare this to the 2.1 percent/yr gain in total employment. As we illustrate in our chart, a negative print from growth in hours worked has tended to, but not always, been consistent with either softer growth in total employment and/or marginally led a dip in total employment. That is it could be a potential signal for softer employment numbers sometime in the next few months.
ustin Smirk is ‎senior economist, Westpac Group and can be contacted <a href="https://www.westpac.com.au/about-westpac/westpac-group/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Labour

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Labour

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News